armoredman
Member
Thank you for the updates, hope dinner was excellent - I had Subway.
I made wife's favorite, ribeye steaks cooked medium rare.Thank you for the updates, hope dinner was excellent - I had Subway.
This issue is actually not that cut-and-dried. A plausible case has been made that in the 18th century, "to bear" arms didn't mean just to carry, but to carry or use within a military formation or at least in some sort of military context. Therefore, "bearable arms" would not just be man-portable arms, but would include crew-served weapons as well. Where do you draw the line? I would say that a .50 cal. machine gun would definitely be "bearable" even though it would be tough for one person to carry one. You could extend the same rationale to artillery and other things.At 4:50 minute, attorney tries to explain what "bearable arm" is asked by the judge and correctly answers "being able to carry".
I would say that a .50 cal. machine gun would definitely be "bearable" even though it would be tough for one person to carry one.
Yes, and I was listening carefully to judges' questions and clarifications they were making with some concern that perhaps they already made up their minds but the last question and point that was made stopped me dead in my track as perhaps it was the most important point made during the arguments - https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/kra.23-1353.23-1353_06_29_2023.mp3type of questions being asked hint to me where the judges' minds are at.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote his dissent in Heller II arguing that "modern" magazine fed semi-auto rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. While he voted with the majority for Bruen ruling, he did opine that states could regulate - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfIt's not clear if the votes to void bans actually exist in Scotus given the views that Roberts and Kavanaugh are weak. Who is to know?
Very good point that is gaining more and more judicial traction.If “large capacity” magazines aren’t in common use for self-defense then why do police officers carry them?
Well, IMHO, it's actually "We the People" who did this. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/federal-judge-rules-oregon’s-tough-new-gun-law-is-constitutional.921034/#post-12672850We brought this on ourselves, IMHO.
To repeat myself, Scotus was idiotic to remand. None of their legal custom, precedents, need to make the circuits do their job mean squat when basic rights are/were deprived and they could have fixed it. I suspect the votes weren't there. I also fume at the apologists who argue that the remand or failure to support the TROs was brilliant legal maneuvering.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/federal-judge-rules-oregon’s-tough-new-gun-law-is-constitutional.921034/page-2#post-12673429Seems to me that in modern times, the slow pace of the courts isn't acceptable. If Scotus makes a major decision, it has to have a quick path where THEY take up violations of their decision in real time ... Folks are still waiting for them to da DAH, wipe out all the bad laws being passed.
- A hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will take place on Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5A
- Interesting thing is the Court intends to consolidate the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits
- At or prior to the hearing, the parties should be prepared to address, among other things:
- a. The Plaintiffs’ continuing Article III standing;
- b. Whether Plaintiffs’ conduct is covered by the text of the Second Amendment
- c. Relevant historical analogues;
- d. Applicability of footnote 9 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022);
- e. The Dormant Commerce Clause (First Claim for Relief);
- f. Preemption by 18 U.S.C. § 926A (Ninth Claim for Relief);
- g. Whether judicial deference is owed to laws produced by ballot measure Proposition 63
- So instead of granting a preliminary injunction, judge Benitez could instead make a final ruling on the case
... Justice Clarence Thomas said ... should only weigh whether the law is "consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding." ... "Basically, the Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America"
Damn a blast from the past, I did the same thing but in reverse carrying the M2 and 2 barrels from the motor pool to the armory. I was so pissed, they forced me to. I was a medic in an APC with a big red cross on it. Needles to say, I never mounted itI remember once, back when I worked for Our Crazy Uncle, carrying the M2 receiver and BOTH barrels from the armory to the APC (M113).
I also had my M16a1 with a 203 grenade launcher mounted, and whatever web gear.
It was about 1/2 mile walk - or stagger, more like- and I never tried it again. I weighed about 160 back then, and I'm almost certain that 50 Cal weighed more than me.
I was a medic for the Army but they sure wanted me "volunteered" for non-medic tasks. Perhaps they wanted us "fit" so we could readily carry wounded around. I was 200 lbs with almost no body fat and quite fit as I cycled in the mountains in High School and did weight training in college to build up my upper body in college before boot camp so I had no issues fireman carrying most soldiers (I remember fireman carrying one over my shoulder and dragging another ... Good times and oh, to be young and strong again ).Damn a blast from the past, I did the same thing but in reverse carrying the M2 and 2 barrels from the motor pool to the armory. I was so pissed, they forced me to. I was a medic in an APC with a big red cross on it. Needles to say, I never mounted it
I also loved to play with all the toys, I was assign to an armor battalion and when the tanks needed medical coverage on the range I would weasel my way to a tank for some 50 cal action and looking through their night sights. Fired some grease guns too, did 2 weeks training with Rangers, carried a 1911 sidearm and a m16 in the rack next to me while driving. But I drew the line at a 50 cal on my APC, essentially an Ambulance with a big red cross on it. Oh, yes it would be nice to be young and strong again.I was a medic for the Army but they sure wanted me "volunteered" for non-medic tasks. Perhaps they wanted us "fit" so we could readily carry wounded around. I was 200 lbs with almost no body fat and quite fit as I cycled in the mountains in High School and did weight training in college to build up my upper body in college before boot camp so I had no issues fireman carrying most soldiers (I remember fireman carrying one over my shoulder and dragging another ... Good times and oh, to be young and strong again ).
For me, it was lugging M60 machine guns around but I did enjoy "volunteering" in my unit's armory keeping M16s maintained and disassembling new M1911s to deburr so they cycled reliably. And my experience working in the armory is what planted the seed for my love for 1911 and shooting to pursue USPSA match shooting after discharge and building countless ARs/PCCs in shooting over 1 million pistol/rifle rounds past 30 years - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...u-change-over-the-years.913488/#post-12486394
Yes, but how a plan is structured is very important, constitutionally. In 1934, it was believed that a "tax" would pass muster, while an outright ban wouldn't. This was the original "workaround" for the NFA. By 1986, it was believed that an outright ban (the Hughes Amendment) would pass muster. (The Hughes Amendment is structured as a ban, with a carveout for existing guns.)Ahem. That statutory $200 tax would be equivalent to $2776.79 today.* That, ladies and gentlemen, was not a revenue measure. It was a proscriptive tax measure designed to limit a constitutional right. (You know it, I know it, and they knew it, Terry alleges.)
Yes, but how a plan is structured is very important, constitutionally. In 1934, it was believed that a "tax" would pass muster, while an outright ban wouldn't.
That statutory $200 tax would be equivalent to $2776.79 today.
Thanks for confirming my position that it was an out-and-out case of chicanery to essentially prohibit certain weapons. I don'r normally use the government CPI calcualtor since I prefer the simplicity of using a simple flat rate throughout the compounding period --mainly because I'm simple minded.Using the CPI Inflation Calculator from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, that $200 in 1934 equals $4,554 today (6/1934 to 6/2023)! Certainly an intentional restriction rather than a tax.
CPI Inflation Calculator